DefenseNews reports that starting in 2017 it will test a new operational concept as preparation for a program set to begin in 2023 and materialize in 2035.
The program will include installation of an autoloader system in the M1A2 Abrams tank, relieving the loader from this mission and reassigning him to a new role - operate drones. More precisely, Unmanned Ground Vehicles operating in groups.
Since the inception of the Abrams tank, there have been numerous attempts to install an autoloading system similar to the Leclerc or rival Soviet tanks. These attempts did not bear fruit and have all failed. Not because of inability to design an efficient system, but because of conflicting doctrinal requirements.
The US Army argues that a human loader is able to perform other tasks to aid the other crewmen and potentially replace one of them in case of injury or death, as well as reduces the complexity of the tank as a whole system.
 |
| Designed by Meggitt, the concept are varied and can be tailored to different needs |
One of the main examples of how the Abrams can be radically changed is the M1 TTB Tank Test Bed designed in the early 80's.
The design of the TTB very closely resembles that of the very recent T-14 Armata MBT.
It had a crew of 3 located in a frontally placed armored capsule. In the center was an isolated ammo compartment that fed the autoloader from a vertically placed rack.
The TTB's concept was later rejected because it did not stand in line with the doctrinal requirements at the time.
However now with the planned doctrinal shift, the autoloader issue could very well become a technical one. As seen for the last couple of decades, every tank that is equipped with an autoloader has merely 3 crewmen, and in the Israeli Carmel program - only 2.
The Abrams is planned to keep all 4 crewmen but with an autoloader in place, and inevitably also a newly designed loader's station to accommodate all the equipment required to operate the pack of UGVs.
Question is; how will they fit the autoloader not only without removing the loader's station, but actually making it even bigger?
The answer could be the Compact Tank Autoloader seen in the pictures above and below, showing a single large rotating ammunition rack operated with a single arm. Performing only a dual action, this design is simple, compact, and efficient.
Between 3:30 and 4:00 you can see the Compact Tank Autoloader in action. Meggitt also provides a variety of solutions for different platforms with different calibers and types of armament, and incorporates decades of experience.
And according to Meggitt, their Compact Autoloader allows retaining the full 4 man crew.
Question is; how will they fit the autoloader not only without removing the loader's station, but actually making it even bigger?
The answer could be the Compact Tank Autoloader seen in the pictures above and below, showing a single large rotating ammunition rack operated with a single arm. Performing only a dual action, this design is simple, compact, and efficient.
And according to Meggitt, their Compact Autoloader allows retaining the full 4 man crew.
The M1A2 is not planned to have the full capability retrofitted, and most likely it will only be incorporated into the M1A3 once the development phase begins.
The Army has yet to decide on the details, but they want a demonstration soon and that requires showing the full capabilities envisioned in the proof of concept period - firing and operating the drones at the same time.
The program does raise questions regarding the M1A3;
1)The commander, driver, and gunner cannot be bothered to concentrate on commanding a pack of drones. Regardless of the level of autonomy these have. Does it mean a 4th crewman will remain in the M1A3 despite the trend to go lower?
2)Will the ammunition capacity be compromised for the sake of drone operating?
3)Will an armored capsule be possible for a 4-man crew?
4)What exact purpose is envisioned for the UGVs to fulfill?
5)What advantage would it give the individual tank over a centralized command station that would justify such complex redesign of the tank and its operational concept?
The obvious alternative is to utilize infantrymen carried in APCs to operate the drones. For example, a 6-man squad carried in a modified AMPV could operate the UGVs of a tank platoon in a more comfortable environment and knowing that it is their sole task. This would also provide 2 extra men to help coordinating with the TCs (Tank Commanders).
Only time will tell.
No comments:
Post a Comment